Blends that benefit most from aging

Sept 29, 2018 11:09:06 GMT -5 sablebrush52 said:

Sept 28, 2018 6:38:57 GMT -5 qmechanics said:

sablebrush52 stated
"Tobaccos change. The nature of that change being for the better or for the worse is an individual value judgement."

Yes however I find few who would debate the general benefits of properly aging Virginia blends. To a lesser extent and varying degrees, this applies to other good candidates for aging as well. In other words, though there are individual value judgements involved there is also consensus,general agreement,which may fall flat for some but not the majority (varies depending on the tobacco, blend in question). For this reason,I have no trouble telling folks this tobacco/blend is a candidate for aging,the reasons why and how the tobacco/ blend may evolve. I would also recommend examining other sources. In the end my goal is to help others develop a proper framework to operate from.They can then determine which blends to age for themselves while reducing the experimentation others had to go through to come to similar conclusions. My statements reflect my methodology. not any desire to be disagreeable. I also think there is much more to consider concerning the sense of taste.

I also have no problem with recommending a blend for aging, but, I will also give anyone who asks the pros and cons.  Certainly, there are some things about which we have no control.  McClelland is gone forever and the only opportunity to enjoy them fresh is now.  That opportunity will never come again.  And I know serious McClellandheads who loved the blends both fresh and aged, been cellaring them for decades, who bemoan to loss of the opportunity to experience them fresh. 

There is a general consensus, not absolute but widespread, but sometimes people don't like what aging does with a specific blend.  Also, very old school blenders, not too many of them left to be sure, pre-age their blends for years before release and consider the unquestioned automatic decision that the blend must be further aged before smoking, to be an insult to their craft.  This is like people who salt everything before they taste it.

So, despite the general consensus, (i never accept declarations of consensus at face value without doing some diligence - people are easily led) despite the fact that I age certain blends because I like how they taste after a few more years, I'll still shoot for accuracy, which is that blends change and whether that change is good or bad is up to the individual smoker to decide.

sablebrush52 stated: I also have no problem with recommending a blend for aging, but, I will also give anyone who asks the pros and cons. Certainly, there are some things about which we have no control. McClelland is gone forever and the only opportunity to enjoy them fresh is now. That opportunity will never come again. And I know serious McClellandheads who loved the blends both fresh and aged, been cellaring them for decades, who bemoan to loss of the opportunity to experience them fresh. Have enough to store and the tobacco blend is right for such things why not.

Reply: The pros and cons are covered in my remarks to others, though certain points of emphasis and experience between us apparently differ. To the point about McClelland fans and others, there are a number of blends that are really good out of the tin. There are also tins I would not consider for long term aging. However these facts do not apply to all tins, where aging cannot only improve a good blend but resurrect blends that need time (i.e. Peter Stokkebye Luxury Flakes appear to need 1-3 years minimum(some will say longer)  before they come alive.). For instance, I enjoy the qualities that aging brought to a number of the stronger Balkans I have in stock, where the still dominant Latakia (not overaged) is now a bit smoother creamier and the Virginia and Oriental components are more pronounced, blending into a unique harmony of flavors. At the same time, I still like the fresh tins, where the young Latakia boldly proclaims its presence among other more subtle qualities. To those blends that get richer with age but still are a treat out of the tin, it is completely understandable why anyone would seek such experiences or lament not being able to do so. McClelland is gone, so rotating new McClelland tins to smoke while maintaining one’s cellar is no longer a possibility.

 PS Peter Stokkebye, C&D etc. blends are noted for sending fresh blends, little to no aging, to the market. Some of these tobaccos, like Peter Stokkebye’s Luxury Flakes, have been noted to need aging to truly appreciate them (Though there are probably some folks who prefer it young.😁).

sablebrush52 stated: There is a general consensus, not absolute but widespread, but sometimes people don't like what aging does with a specific blend. Also, very old school blenders, not too many of them left to be sure, pre-age their blends for years before release and consider the unquestioned automatic decision that the blend must be further aged before smoking, to be an insult to their craft. This is like people who salt everything before they taste it.

 Reply: I would not debate that” sometimes people don't like what aging does with a specific blend”. I agree. Latakia fans, for example, vary in their expectations. There are those who holler the moment the Latakia does not flex its muscles. I am very wary of telling those folks to age any Latakia blends, especially for periods exceeding ~10years(This is a general approximation that can vary). Generally knowing what will happen as it ages, I warn them accordingly.

I believe if the blend is good enjoy it. If the blend looks like a good candidate to age, age it. You can do both at the same time. The blender, so long as he or she is still producing, will always get the opportunity for folks to try his or her blend as intended, while the customer can explore and hopefully enjoy both experiences. Eventually the blender or blend will die and the last blend will age with its brothers; even if another steps in, it’s just another day until it’s over. To the blender I say get used to it and to the smoker try a blend first before thinking of aging. Smoking the blend after purchase can be a good tasty experience. It also gives one another layer of information, a comparison for future reference; a base point to consider the benefits and shortfalls of aging.

Besides I am not sure of anyone, that is amongst those with experience, who promotes the idea that one should have an “unquestioned automatic decision that the blend must be further aged before smoking” , though I do not doubt their existence. However most people I know actually procure, use and age tobacco in a way that is very different from the above characterization. Typically when a blend goes straight to the cellar, it is because one knows it needs aging, is restocking the cellar, and/or have a fresh supply in hand. There is also the possibility of forgotten blends that simply have not been sampled yet. Understanding what you are trying to say, I am not sure I would use the salt comparison, considering that aging is natural process where flavors evolve over time.

I also believe multiple samples are first required to get a flavor base point. If one wishes to age the tobacco further that is up to them. At this point if they have no experience with the blend, general trends and research can help them determine the best course of action. A trend can be examined in different ways. Recommendations as to how one understands and applies this knowledge can also be tailored by listening to the other’s tastes and experiences, expert opinions, research on how a tobacco or types of tobaccos when blended together behave. There is also personal experience. Trends also have different merits; how well they generally hold true or deviate from the mean. When used properly, I believe aging trends are still useful and help guide the ship. For example if a person purchased a heavily topped burley aromatic blend and a young 100% Virginia blend (only Virginia varieties) which is more likely to improve with aging? One might express all the details about the blends and the aging process/benefits for each blend. Still in the end, the answer favors aging the Virginia leaving the aromatic to open anytime the person chooses (with the understanding the longer the wait the topping will wane). When the choice is more complex the trends can be more difficult to predict. However having a good grasp of these tendencies and changes that are likely to occur, seeking advice, doing research provides a good basis for predictions. Ultimately, one can simply experiment starting with a well-considered hypothesis and see what comes. Success or failure can further hone a person’s skills, improving the chances of future success. Crucial to the above is my interactions with other pipe smokers where simple inquiries into a person’s preference and habits go a long way in determining what is best for him or her. If they have a few bad habits,I propose changes they can make to improve their smoking experience.* How many times has a simple suggestion or two opened up a blend previously thought inaccessible?

*I always recommend sampling a blend over a period of time with different pipes (Sizes (narrower bowls for Virginia blends, broader bowls for Latakia blends etc.)and pipe types (Briar, Meershaum, Cobs, Morta etc. ) etc.), if available, before judging the product or thinking about the cellar. Palates can be affected by food/drink, oral hygiene, previous blends smoked, lack of pipe upkeep, differences in pipe configurations, pipe mechanics, tobacco preparation, smoking techniques (packing, puffing etc,) etc. Correcting those things listed and other factors, allows the smoker to experience the blend in a different way, possibly opening up an avenue towards appreciation. There are also other ideas one can employ, like using a Cob, Meerschaum and Morta for the blend’s first test as these pipes tend to be less susceptible to ghosting (compared to briar). It is also wise to have pipes,especially true with briars, designated either to a blend or blend category (Latakia, Virginia, Aromatic etc.) to help reduce ghosting. Still among my pipes dedicated to general blend categories ghosting can occur (for example, between Latakia blends that are very different from each other). This is one reason why I lightly clean the stem and shank and gently remove the excess residue from my bowl (with a paper towel) a day or two after I use it. This practice has done wonders for me (I enjoy a wide variety of tobaccos. Those with a narrower focus, i.e. exclusive light Latakia lovers, more than likely, have less trouble.)

sablebrush52 stated: So, despite the general consensus, (i never accept declarations of consensus at face value without doing some diligence - people are easily led) despite the fact that I age certain blends because I like how they taste after a few more years, I'll still shoot for accuracy,which is that blends change and whether that change is good or bad is up to the individual smoker to decide.

Reply: I am not one to be easily led, to follow the pack or make statements without some consideration (Though I certainly can be wrong or incomplete in my understanding). The general trends I mentioned are also researched to varying degrees 😁(Admitting my fallibility and the fact that this subject (and many others) is still a work in progress, I still have things to learn and have acquired much from folks online like yourself (I really appreciate your posts) and other sources. So even though a disagreement might arise I do not discount folks readily.).
   When disagreements arise about blend preferences, it is common to hear people immediately state “tastes differ” as the final explanation that appears to cover everything (that is following a crowd). Sad to say, they are not even considering the factors that influence taste; especially causes that can be corrected. Nor do some folks consider a means to gently lead another to appreciation. Personally I have found many instances, including your own experience, that teaches me do not take anything for granted. Do you recognize this quote:

‘The first time I tried FVF I hated it. To me it tasted like a stable after the horse had shite in it. But a member here suggested that I let it dry for 5 hours before packing it and lighting up. Made all the difference in the world. Lovely flavors appeared. Smoke it very dry and very slowly. Light sips, just curls of smoke, And gently blow it out through your schnoz.’

I ran into your pipe magazine response earlier while looking at FVF reviews for my own study. I remembered it when I read your response. I think it does an adequate job of illustrating a point or two.

One might ask if all tastes are merely subjective value judgments, how useful can any suggestion really be? How can someone help another with blend selections and aging suggestions, if there is no basis for common ground? These questions are rhetorical, stated for affect, and do not require a response nor do they apply to you or anyone who has a bit of common sense. Still I hope my points will be made clearer by them. Yes the tobacco’s aging process and one’s subjective value judgements in this case tobacco/blend tastes are different sets both proceeding on their own without interaction. But once the two intersect there is a subset, a point of interaction/connection. Blends do change with age and yes it is up to smokers to decide for themselves whether it is good or not. At the same time, I do not think there is any doubt that each of us also makes flavor connections all the time with other people. We are human with physiological, biochemical etc. factors that can differ, affecting any number of things. We also have much in common, physiologically biochemically etc. speaking and as luck would have it some palates are more similar than others. I believe with the right approach one can uncover where the differences and commonalities lie and sometimes why (The why is where the fun lies). This is where we can make meaningful suggestions while considering how taste and its influences come into play. So can being accurate involve multiple levels of understanding? I think so. My approach looks into many different venues, still a work in progress, and tries not to discount any useful information. The hope is to integrate it into a beneficial system.

I apologize ahead of time for not completely covering every point and providing only a few ideas😁. I only have a short period to respond and then am off again as usual ;-). Truly appreciating the information & experience you, sablebrush52, provides,  I thank you for posting and acknowledge your expertise. In reality, I believe our opinions  are closer than they might appear.